Key Office Equipment, Inc. VS Kyocera Mita America, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COTJRT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2012 CA 0618 KEY OFFICE EQUIPMENT INC VERSUS KYOCERA MITA AMERICA iNC DATE OF JUDGMENT FEB 1 3 2013 ON APPEAL FROM THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT NiIMBER 600 SECTION 22 PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE 486 STATE OF LOUISIANA HONORABLE TIMOTHY E KELLEY JUDGE Steven E Adams Baton Counsel for Plaintiff Appellant Key Office Equipment Inc Rouge Louisiana Thomas J Lutkewitte Counsel for Defendant Appellee Brad P Scott Kyocera Mita America Inc New Orleans Louisiana BEFORE KUHN PETTIGREW AND McDONALD JJ Disposition REVERSED AND RENDERED y vi l j La C KIJHN J appellant Plaintiff Key Office Equipment Inc Key Office appeals a district court judgment dismissing its claims with prejudice pursuant to a peremptory exception raising the objection of res judicata For the following reasons we reverse the trial court judgment and render judgment overruling the s exception FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2003 a contractual dispute arose between defendant Kyocera appellee Mita America Ina Kyocera and one of its dealers Key Office concerning equipment that Key Office asserted it could not sell due to technical problems As a result Kyocera filed suit on open account against Key Office The matter subsequently was submitted to arbitration by joint stipulation of the parties In January 2008 the arbitrator rendered an award in favor of Kyocera and against Key Office in the amount of 36 plus costs Thereafter Kyocera 65 489 filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award in the 19th Judicial District Court and Key Office filed an opposing motion to vacate the award The district court refused to consider the motion to vacate on the ground it was untimely and rendered judgment confirming the arbitration award This court reversed the confirmation judgment on appeal finding that the district court erred both in finding Key Office motion to vacate to be untimely and in not considering the s objections it raised to Kyocera motion to confirm the arbitration award s See Kyocera Mita Ar Inc v Key Office Equipmenl Inc 08 La App zerica 2332 1st Cir 6 unpublished 09 30 Upon remand the district court conducted a second hearing on the opposing motions and again granted Kyocera motion to s confirm the arbitration award and denied Key Office motion to vacate That s 2 judgment was affirmed by this court See Kyocera Mita America Inc v Key OffrceEquipment 10 La App lst Cir 2 unpublished 1205 11 11 Following the finality of the judgment confirming the arbitration award Key Office filed suit in district court against Kyocera alleging that in an effort to mitigate losses and receive credit for the still equipment it had or unsold returned the subject equipment to a Kyocera facility in Houston Texas where delivery was accepted on April 7 2008 Key Office further alleged that although it invoiced Kyocera for 66 for the returned equipment Kyocera had 00 435 neither paid that amount nor returned the equipment to Key Office Accardingly Key Office alleged it was entitled to judgment for the invoiced amount less a credit for the amount owed to Kyocera under the arbitration award since the disputed equipment had been returned to Kyocera possession s In response Kyocera filed an exception of res judicata asserting that the instant matter stemmed from the same contractual dispute and suit in open account it had initiated against Key Office in 2004 which eventually was resolved by the arbitration award confirmed by the district court The district court sustained the exception and dismissed Key Office claims with prejudice Key Office now s appeals arguing that the district court erred in applying res judicata when the events giving rise to its claims i the return and acceptance of the equipment by e Kyocera occurred after the arbitration proceedings RES JUDICATA In order for a matter to be considered res judicata due to a prior judgment the prior judgment must be valid and final the parties must be the same the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit must have existed at the time of A confirmed arbitration award is considered to be a valid and final judgment for purposes of res judicata See In relnterdictian of Wright 10 La 10125 75 So3d 893 897 1826 ll 3 I final judgment in the first litigation and the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit must have arisen out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation La R 13 Burguieres u Pollingue S 4231 1385 02 La 2 843 So 1049 1053 The chief inquiry in considering an 03 25 2d exception of res judicata is whether the second action asserts a cause of action that arises out of the transaction or occ that was the subject matter of the first rrence action Pierrotti v Tohnson 11 La App lst Cir 3 9l So3d 1056 1317 12 19 1063 The doctrine of res judicata is stricti juris and should be rejected when doubt exists as to whether a party substantive rights have actually been s previously addressed and finally resolved Middleton v Livingstorc Timber Inc 2215 11 La App lst Cir 6 94 So3d 153 155 When an objection of res 12 8 judicata is raised before the case is submitted and evidence is received on the objection the standard of review on appea is traditionally manifest error However the res judicata effect of a prior judgment is a question of law that is reviewed de novo Pierrotti 91 So3d at 1063 Applying this criteria to the instant case we agree with Key Office that the district court erred in finding that the claims raised in the instant matter were res judicata as a result of the prior judgment confirming the arbitration award Kyocera asserts in brief that the issue of Key Office right to return the equipment s for credit on its open account was an issue raised and rejected in the arbitration proceedings However even if that assertion is correct whether Key Office had a right of return is not the issue presented in the instant matter The undisputed fact is that Key Office did return the equipment and Kyocera accepted the shipment Thus the transaction ar occurrence giving rise to Key Office present claims is s not the original sale and open account dispute at issue in the arbitration but the 4 actual return of the equipment to Kyocera and any consequences resulting therefrom Clearly no claims arising from or related to that return could have been considered in the arbitration proceedings because the events giving rise to the claims had not yet occurred While the facts and circumstances at issue in the arbitration proceedings are related the present claims are based on a different set of circumstances that arose after the arbitration The factual basis of Key Office s current claims simply did not exist at the time of the arbitration proceedings nor did any cause of action based on the actual return exist at that time A final judgment has the authority of a thing adjudged only as to those issues presented in the pleadings and conclusively adjudicated by the court Middleton 94 So at 3d 155 Since the claims presently made by Key Office did not arise from the same transaction ar occurrence as the earlier open account dispute the district court erred in sustaining the exception ofres judicata CONCLUSION For the reasons stated the judgment of the district court sustaining the exception raising the objection of res judicata filed by Kyocera Mita America Inc and dismissing the claims of Key Office Equipment Inc with prejudice is reversed and judgment is hereby entered overruling the exception All costs of this appeal are to be paid by Kyocera REVERSED AND RENDERED 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
